A BBC documentary where 6 volunteers are subject to 'enhanced interrogation techniques' as used against Al Queda detainees at Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Their 'captors' are former US military intelligence officers who were formerly employed at Gitmo and black sites throughout the world during the War On Terror.

CONTENT REMOVED

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

The thing about torture is its justification is a function of the importance of the information you are trying to extract.

Obviously employing such tactics to find out who ate the last of the strawberries on the USS Caine would be immoral. But what if we were trying to locate a missing MK 54 SADM....otherwise known as the suitcase nuke? Would such tactics be justified?

(30-07-2013 02:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: The thing about torture is its justification is a function of the importance of the information you are trying to extract.

Obviously employing such tactics to find out who ate the last of strawberries on the USS Caine would be immoral. But what if we were trying to locate a missing MK 54 SADM....otherwise known as the suitcase nuke? Would such tactics be justified?

No, for multiple reasons. In descending order of importance 1: torture is immoral, it is a barbaric relic from an age that we as a species should be past so so even in the ticking bomb fantasy it is wrong because, 2: Torture does not produce accurate information, it instead produces what the victim thinks the torturer wants to hear. 3: Torture is illegal both in the United States and internationally, it is a violation of human rights and a disgrace to the principles of our society.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

(30-07-2013 02:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: The thing about torture is its justification is a function of the importance of the information you are trying to extract.

Obviously employing such tactics to find out who ate the last of strawberries on the USS Caine would be immoral. But what if we were trying to locate a missing MK 54 SADM....otherwise known as the suitcase nuke? Would such tactics be justified?

No, for multiple reasons. In descending order of importance 1: torture is immoral, it is a barbaric relic from an age that we as a species should be past so so even in the ticking bomb fantasy it is wrong because, 2: Torture does not produce accurate information, it instead produces what the victim thinks the torturer wants to hear. 3: Torture is illegal both in the United States and internationally, it is a violation of human rights and a disgrace to the principles of our society.

When you interrogate someone, You ask them some questions to which you already know the truth. If they lie, and likely they will, you punish them....severely. You do that over and over again until you gain some confidence in their statements.

Torture isn't 100% effective, but its isn't 100% ineffective either(although some people would like to believe it is 100% ineffective). Now instead lets say the device you are looking for isn't a suitcase nuke that could destroy a few square blocks of a city but rather a device which could destroy the entire world. Wouldn't then the need be so great that it would justify torture in the hope it gives you the information you need to save the world?

(30-07-2013 02:48 AM)Revenant77x Wrote: No, for multiple reasons. In descending order of importance 1: torture is immoral, it is a barbaric relic from an age that we as a species should be past so so even in the ticking bomb fantasy it is wrong because, 2: Torture does not produce accurate information, it instead produces what the victim thinks the torturer wants to hear. 3: Torture is illegal both in the United States and internationally, it is a violation of human rights and a disgrace to the principles of our society.

When you interrogate someone, You ask them some questions to which you already know the truth. If they lie, and likely they will, you punish them....severely. You do that over and over again until you gain some confidence in their statements.

Torture isn't 100% effective, but its isn't 100% ineffective either(although some people would like to believe it is 100% ineffective). Now instead lets say the device you are looking for isn't a suitcase nuke that could destroy a few square blocks of a city but rather a device which could destroy the entire world. Wouldn't then the need be so great that it would justify torture in the hope it gives you the information you need to save the world?

Nope still has the major problem of gaining false positives but as I said that was only the 2nd most important reason. Even if you could prove that torture produced 100% accurate results it is still wrong.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

(30-07-2013 03:07 AM)Revenant77x Wrote: Nope still has the major problem of gaining false positives but as I said that was only the 2nd most important reason. Even if you could prove that torture produced 100% accurate results it is still wrong.

Saying something is immoral is really a weak argument. You are just expressing an opinion. Its fine to have an opinion, but don't confuse your opinion with a strong, reasoned argument.

Second, the fact that torture some times results in "false positives" is a red herring. The relevant question is, Does torture increase(or decrease) your chances of obtaining the information you desire.

(30-07-2013 03:17 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Saying something is immoral is really a weak argument. You are just expressing an opinion. Its fine to have an opinion, but don't confuse your opinion with a strong, reasoned argument.

Actually, in this case, saying it is immoral is a very compelling argument. The immorality of torture is among the few universal moral stances that social animals hold in common. It is generally taboo, even in the rest of the social animal kingdom.

(30-07-2013 03:17 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Saying something is immoral is really a weak argument. You are just expressing an opinion. Its fine to have an opinion, but don't confuse your opinion with a strong, reasoned argument.

Actually, in this case, saying it is immoral is a very compelling argument. The immorality of torture is among the few universal moral stances that social animals hold in common. It is generally taboo, even in the rest of the social animal kingdom.

I find the "argument" that torture is immoral and therefore should not be practiced to be as compelling as the "argument" that homosexuality is immoral and should not be practiced.

Second, the view that torture is universally held to be immoral doesn't hold much water because torture happens every day all around the world....by major world powers such as the US, China, and Russia.

(30-07-2013 03:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: I find the "argument" that torture is immoral and therefore should not be practiced to be as compelling as the "argument" that homosexuality is immoral and should not be practiced.

The difference is that the rest of the social animal kingdom does not condemn homosexuality, so that is a subjective element to our morality.

(30-07-2013 03:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Second, the view that torture is universally held to be immoral doesn't hold much water because torture happens every day all around the world.

That is a poor argument. With that argument, one could say that murder is not immoral because it occurs all over the world. I said it is generally demonstrated by the universal objective elements found in basic social morality.